9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer while passing the assessment order, though, the assessment order was revised by ld PCIT. The revenue in the present application is seeking revive of the order, which is not permissible under section 254(2). So far as specific plea raised in the present application that there is no clear finding about the availability of cash in the hand of assess- company is concerned, we find that once we impliedly accepted the plea of the assessee that same amount cannot be taxed twice. And that assessee company reduced the cash balance by passing the accounting entry by crediting sum and debiting the same amount to the cash seized in the search. Thus, we do not find any merit in this present Misc. application and we dismiss the same. - SHRI P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion taken by assessee falls apart. Since the assessee failed to explain the availability of cash on the date of deposit. There is no finding of Tribunal on such fact. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that either suitable correction in the order dated 22/12/2022 may be made or order may be recalled for adjudication afresh as the vital part of controversy in the matter was left un-adjudicated and thus the mistake apparent in the order of Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee supported the order of Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the revenue/Assessing Officer is seeking review of the order which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record carefully including the order of Tribunal dated 21/11/2022. We find that in the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of order under Section 263 passed by the ld. Pr.CIT, Valsad. The core issue while adjudicating appeal was, if the twin condition of Section 263 whether the assessment order passed by assessing officer was erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We find that while adjudicating the appeal of assessee, we have already took a view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not at all prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the impugned amount of Rs. 15.50 lacs were already taxed in the hands of individual Director. This fact was initially accepted by the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
